Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

    Originally posted by BillS View Post
    There's an external here that gets missed, which is how much of the NBA's marketing depends on promoting a single player. Individual clubs are handicapped doing long-term marketing campaigns for the team as a whole because of the sheer amount of nationwide noise that emphasizes certain players as the reason to watch NBA basketball.
    I don't know if this is necessarily true for small market teams though. Individual player marketing is largely done on a national level by endorsers and the league. If the Pacers had a superstar they wouldn't have to market him too much because just by virtue of being on ESPN all the time he'd have name recognition.

    Casual NBA fans watch games more based on individual players while local fans watch more based on win/loss and the thrill of being involved in an expression of civic pride, so I don't think a superstar matters as much for attendance as much as winning.

    I do agree with you about NBA teams needing to do more team marketing instead of focusing on the individual players so much. The NFL does such a good job with this. Look at the team logos. NFL logos are iconic, effective and ingrained in the culture of the teams. Half the NBA teams seem to change their logos every three years and it's hard to build a consistent presence in a market when you re-brand constantly.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
      Casual NBA fans watch games more based on individual players while local fans watch more based on win/loss and the thrill of being involved in an expression of civic pride, so I don't think a superstar matters as much for attendance as much as winning.
      Winning or a superstar pretty much means you don't need marketing. Marketing is there to produce consistent support for the team in spite of the personnel and the record. I think if the league as a whole helped drive this team level marketing in addition to their player focus it would start to be "cool" to be a fan of a team and not just a player.
      BillS

      A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
      Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

        It's just unfortunate that a small-market team has to be as brilliant as Sam Presti to succeed (he has literally never struck out) whereas a larger-market team like LAL eventually will get a chance to compete regardless of how well they've done.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

          Originally posted by rexnom View Post
          It's just unfortunate that a small-market team has to be as brilliant as Sam Presti to succeed (he has literally never struck out) whereas a larger-market team like LAL eventually will get a chance to compete regardless of how well they've done.
          This isn't true. Large market poorly run teams fail constantly (The Wizards in particular come to mind). The Lakers are large market and brilliantly run, that's why they dominate.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

            Originally posted by rexnom View Post
            It's just unfortunate that a small-market team has to be as brilliant as Sam Presti to succeed (he has literally never struck out) whereas a larger-market team like LAL eventually will get a chance to compete regardless of how well they've done.
            Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
            This isn't true. Large market poorly run teams fail constantly (The Wizards in particular come to mind). The Lakers are large market and brilliantly run, that's why they dominate.
            He didn't say a large market team will by definition dominate, he said there will always be another chance for them to compete. A poorly-run large market team has to really stink (think of the anti-Sam Presti) to fold or get moved. As long as the team stays put and has fans, there will be an opportunity to compete, and large market teams don't have the worries that a small market team does.

            I am unaware that the current Wizards ownership is considering closing them down or moving them any time soon, certainly the previous ownership had no intentions whatsoever of doing so.

            Certainly a well-run large-market team will dominate - they have all the advantages and use them well. A poorly-run small market team is about guaranteed to be gone at some point -- they have none of the advantages and can't come up with anything to offset them. The comparison would be between a competently run team in both markets - the size of the market gives an inherent advantage that means the small market can't afford to make any mistakes in order to maintain the same standards a large market can maintain while having some screwups here and there.

            The whole point is that market size is an advantage, one that could be perceived as unfair in a league trying to work across all market sizes, and that if some creative way can be made to help level that part of the playing field without rewarding poor management, the league would be stronger and better.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

              Originally posted by BillS View Post
              They [small markets] have none of the advantages and can't come up with anything to offset them.
              Small markets can definitely offset the advantages. There's no trick or super heroic brilliance, just good management. The Pacers have never been great wheeler dealers but they're one of two teams (the other being the Lakers) who haven't won less 30 games in any season in the last twenty years.

              The small market [team] can't afford to make any mistakes in order to maintain the same standards a large market can maintain while having some screwups here and there.
              Small market teams can make mistakes. The Pacers have definitely made some. Small market teams don't have the leeway that some larger markets have but it's not insurmountable by any measure.

              The whole point is that market size is an advantage, one that could be perceived as unfair in a league trying to work across all market sizes, and that if some creative way can be made to help level that part of the playing field without rewarding poor management, the league would be stronger and better.
              The league already does this though. Players have to stay on the team that drafted them for 7 years. I've yet to hear a rational argument for why this isn't long enough.

              My main point through this whole thread has been this: The advantages of being in a large market exists in every part of life not just the NBA. Large markets have advantages in attracting talent in ALL fields.

              Basketball is a career for these guys and they want to maximize their earning power. At a certain point you have to let them go where they want to go and not punish them for having some self-interest.

              This paragraph (from a great American Scholar essay worth reading) says everything I'm not eloquent enough to say.

              “For once in the history of the world,” wrote essayist Charles D. Stuart, “the interests of the financier and the people are one”—whereas the interests of the ballplayer, belonging to neither of these groups, are ultimately at odds with those of his sport. The player is loved by the fans, not as a person with economic rights and needs, but as a soldier “drafted” onto their city’s team. His individuality mustn’t ever transcend the importance of the uniform he wears that bears his city’s name. As comedian Jerry Seinfeld put it more recently, “You’re actually rooting for the clothes, when you get right down to it.”

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                You are insane if you honestly think big markets don't have a HUGE advantage over small markets. The top teams are spending what, 50% more than the bottom? They get to make many mistakes and get to sign a bunch of vets through all the exceptions.

                They have a gigantic competitive advantage.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                  Originally posted by oxxo View Post
                  You are insane if you honestly think big markets don't have a HUGE advantage over small markets. The top teams are spending what, 50% more than the bottom? They get to make many mistakes and get to sign a bunch of vets through all the exceptions.

                  They have a gigantic competitive advantage.
                  50% more than who?

                  http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

                  Utah, Memphis, Portland and Milwaukee all spend in the top ten.

                  Chicago, Washington, LA Clippers and the MIAMI HEAT all spend in the bottom ten.

                  Big market teams aren't outspending small market teams and buying all the good players like in baseball.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    Small markets can definitely offset the advantages. There's no trick or super heroic brilliance, just good management. The Pacers have never been great wheeler dealers but they're one of two teams (the other being the Lakers) who haven't won less 30 games in any season in the last twenty years.
                    You edited out the first part of the quoted sentence and didn't editor bracket the right replacement. "They" didn't just refer to "small market teams", it referred to POORLY RUN small market teams. That paragraph was meant to show the two extremes, not to be the example.

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    Small market teams can make mistakes. The Pacers have definitely made some. Small market teams don't have the leeway that some larger markets have but it's not insurmountable by any measure.
                    And the mistakes the Pacers have made recently came within a whisker of killing the franchise. A large market team making the same mistakes doesn't get punished by the fans nearly as much because there are enough die-hards in the market to keep it floating. The mistakes have to be much more drastic to be as devastating.

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    The league already does this though. Players have to stay on the team that drafted them for 7 years. I've yet to hear a rational argument for why this isn't long enough.
                    Because unless that one player is the person who will hit the NBA and immediately and single-handedly take the franchise to the championship, it can take that long to develop completely. It took 7 years after the Bulls drafted Jordan for them to win the championship - with His Airness, for crying out loud. If it's a slightly lesser player and a market with fewer benefits, the 7 years isn't enough.

                    The point here is that even a franchise of average to above average competence has to have time, luck, and lots of things fall into place to get to a championship level. If every time that happens they get a kick to the curb, it keeps them from being able to remain competitive.

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    My main point through this whole thread has been this: The advantages of being in a large market exists in every part of life not just the NBA. Large markets have advantages in attracting talent in ALL fields.

                    Basketball is a career for these guys and they want to maximize their earning power. At a certain point you have to let them go where they want to go and not punish them for having some self-interest.

                    This paragraph (from a great American Scholar essay worth reading) says everything I'm not eloquent enough to say.
                    And my point is that it IS in the interests of the players to have a lot of strong franchises that aren't limited in geography. If the strength of the sum of franchises is greater, then it isn't only the largest and most successful who can afford to pay not just top salaries but high salaries to the middle of the roster players.

                    If winning draws people, help give all the teams a chance to win. If the large markets have an inherent advantage because players want to go there, give the small markets something they can use as an incentive that the big markets can't match. That doesn't hurt the players, it doesn't hurt the fans, it makes the game more competitive. The only teams it hurts are the ones in the large markets or the ones who hit the lottery.

                    In other words, make success for a franchise no matter the size of the market something that can actually be planned and managed for rather than dependent not ONLY on management but on factors beyond the control of management.

                    Otherwise, just stop the pretense, move any franchise not in an SMSA that is either a top-10 market or in the Sun Belt, and make it completely a players' league, where the fans are merely a source of income and don't really matter in any other way. It'll still make money, but I'd venture to say not as much and there will be little to no growth except by annexing leagues around the world.
                    Last edited by BillS; 04-15-2011, 06:31 PM.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      You edited out the first part of the quoted sentence and didn't editor bracket the right replacement. "They" didn't just refer to "small market teams", it referred to POORLY RUN small market teams. That paragraph was meant to show the two extremes, not to be the example.
                      If a small market team can't be bad without the threat of moving then that's a far deeper issue than what we're talking about here. Basketball is a zero sum game when it comes to wins. There has to be a loser. If a team can't stay solvent with a couple of bad years then that team probably shouldn't be in that city or there needs to be changes to the way money is shared in the league.

                      I'm solely talking about player movement within the league from small market to big market being a total disaster and why it's a big myth. What you're talking about is a completely different, and more fundamental, issue.

                      And the mistakes the Pacers have made recently came within a whisker of killing the franchise. A large market team making the same mistakes doesn't get punished by the fans nearly as much because there are enough die-hards in the market to keep it floating. The mistakes have to be much more drastic to be as devastating.
                      This again is a different issue. A team that never bottomed out and always stayed at least somewhat competitive for two decades should not come close to death. This is about revenue sharing, generating and what percent the players should get.

                      The point here is that even a franchise of average to above average competence has to have time, luck, and lots of things fall into place to get to a championship level. If every time that happens they get a kick to the curb, it keeps them from being able to remain competitive.
                      But this has happened twice in the last twenty years. It is not a problem. You're setting up a dire scenario but it happens once every decade.

                      Small market players leave for big market teams in EVERY SPORT and EVERY PROFESSION. If this is crushing the league then there is a fundamental problem in league financing, not player movement.

                      And my point is that it IS in the interests of the players to have a lot of strong franchises that aren't limited in geography.
                      It's in the interest of players to have strong franchises in a lot of different areas. It's not fair if you're making them go to small cities with limited funds, poor management and asking them not to leave.

                      If the strength of the sum of franchises is greater, then it isn't only the largest and most successful who can afford to pay not just top salaries but high salaries to the middle of the roster players.
                      Middle of the roster players are more likely to stay with their teams because of the salary increases. For LeBron making taking a pay cut from $18 mil to $15 mil isn't that bad. For a role player making $5 mil compared to $7 mil is a big deal. When's the last time the Pacers lost a middle of the roster player they wanted to keep?

                      In fact, a lot of the examples I can think of are teams from BIG markets not being able to afford their role players: Celtics with Kendrick Perkins, James Posey. Lakers with Trevor Ariza. All the stuff the Suns had to do to try and keep their core together.

                      If winning draws people, help give all the teams a chance to win. If the large markets have an inherent advantage because players want to go there, give the small markets something they can use as an incentive that the big markets can't match. That doesn't hurt the players, it doesn't hurt the fans, it makes the game more competitive. The only teams it hurts are the ones in the large markets or the ones who hit the lottery.
                      What's your plan for hurting the big market teams and helping the small market teams? I've yet to see one, in this thread or elsewhere, that makes sense.

                      In other words, make success for a franchise no matter the size of the market something that can actually be planned and managed for rather than dependent not ONLY on management but on factors beyond the control of management.
                      I'd love to hear that plan but it sounds like utopia. You're an NBA Marxist.

                      Otherwise, just stop the pretense, move any franchise not in an SMSA that is either a top-10 market or in the Sun Belt, and make it completely a players' league, where the fans are merely a source of income and don't really matter in any other way. It'll still make money, but I'd venture to say not as much and there will be little to no growth except by annexing leagues around the world.
                      I don't think some cities right now are NBA level markets moving forward (Memphis, Charlotte, Sacramento, New Orleans) and it's probably better that they not have teams or they move to more hospitable cities.

                      Truthfully, the NBA shouldn't be made up of mega metropolises (metropoli?) and relatively tiny cities. It's not fair to either. Heavyweight boxers don't fight lightweights.
                      Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 04-15-2011, 07:06 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                        To be clear, I'm not saying there aren't problems with small market teams making money. I'm just saying that the outrage over player movement is overblown an easy target when in reality it's not as big a crisis as it's being made out to be.

                        This Chris Sheridan article deals with the business side of things that I agree needs revamping.

                        But before the players agree to absorb some of the expenses, they want to see some of the larger market owners share more of their local TV revenue with the smaller market owners who receive only a fraction of that money from their local TV deals.

                        When this thing gets settled, look for that BRI recalculation and enhanced local TV revenue sharing to be major parts of the new labor deal. Other factors such as age limits, rookie scales, lengths of contracts, etcetera, are secondary.

                        It's about the pool of money, redefining how to calculate the pool of money and then splitting it up.
                        Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 04-15-2011, 07:21 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                          Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                          To be clear, I'm not saying there aren't problems with small market teams making money. I'm just saying that the outrage over player movement is overblown an easy target when in reality it's not as big a crisis as it's being made out to be.

                          This Chris Sheridan article deals with the business side of things that I agree needs revamping.


                          The issues brought up in the opening article aren't about small market teams losing money, that's a given. The issues brought up are about small market teams being at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to being competitive. I think the outrage over player movement to a few select preferred teams is a serious issue. The real issue is more one of preferred destinations versus unpreferred destinations but the preferred destinations also happen to be in big markets. It's always been a problem, but it's became a much bigger problem recently. You've said nothing to convince me that the ability of NY, Miami, and Chicago to draw all star free agents is not an advantage. It is and it's an unfair advantage, but it can be addressed in the cba if it's a priority to the owners. I realize that the financial side of the cba will always be priority #1 but everything I've read from Stern and Silver concerning parity at least shows that it is a real issue that they want to address in the cba. I hope something goes through to level the playing field more then it is now.
                          Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                            Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                            The issues brought up in the opening article aren't about small market teams losing money, that's a given. The issues brought up are about small market teams being at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to being competitive.
                            I know, and I've said from the beginning that it's much ado about nothing. There are problems with being a small market team, access to talent is not one of them.

                            I think the outrage over player movement to a few select preferred teams is a serious issue.
                            It's an easy position to take because it makes sense when you first look at it ("All the good players want to go to New York and LA and Miami! They have all the money") but if you actually go through all the evidence it's no more prominent than it's ever been. It seems that way because it just happened but like I keep saying, it's happened TWICE in the last twenty years that a top ten player has left his team in free agency.

                            You've said nothing to convince me that the ability of NY, Miami, and Chicago to draw all star free agents is not an advantage.
                            I never tried to convince you otherwise. I just don't think it's as big a deal as the media makes it out to be. It's an easy narrative to push (and it's definitely being pushed by the league and owners). It doesn't happen any more in the NBA than it does in any other are of life.

                            It is and it's an unfair advantage, but it can be addressed in the cba if it's a priority to the owners. I realize that the financial side of the cba will always be priority #1 but everything I've read from Stern and Silver concerning parity at least shows that it is a real issue that they want to address in the cba. I hope something goes through to level the playing field more then it is now.
                            And I ask again, what's the plan?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post

                              And I ask again, what's the plan?
                              I gave you my idea for a plan but I think there are many ways to go about achieving better parity. I think limiting each team to 1 max contract player and setting a lower max for the second and third highest paid players would stop player collusion for all star players to join forces on 1 team, they'd have to play each other if they want to get paid and win a title. A sliding scale exception could be made based on # of years played for the team you sign with, that would help teams to keep their own free agents.
                              I have no idea what the NBA's plan is but here's an interview with Silver speaking about the parity in the upcoming cba negotiations.
                              http://portlandtribune.com/sports/st...59444827019000
                              Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Good JA Adande article: Small market, Part 1

                                Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                                I gave you my idea for a plan but I think there are many ways to go about achieving better parity. I think limiting each team to 1 max contract player and setting a lower max for the second and third highest paid players would stop player collusion for all star players to join forces on 1 team, they'd have to play each other if they want to get paid and win a title.
                                NBA teams, big market and small, wouldn't do this. Teams like the flexibility to spend their money how they want. I can't see the players association or the owners pushing for this.

                                LeBron and Bosh didn't sign for the max. So you'd have no problem with them in your scenario?

                                A sliding scale exception could be made based on # of years played for the team you sign with, that would help teams to keep their own free agents.
                                I have no idea what the NBA's plan is but here's an interview with Silver speaking about the parity in the upcoming cba negotiations.
                                http://portlandtribune.com/sports/st...59444827019000
                                The key quote from the Silver article is this:

                                We’re spending too much on (player) salaries, though, and under our current CBA, we pay roughly 57 percent of gross (income) to our players. At our meeting during All-Star weekend, we told them prospects are wonderful, but the model is broken, and no business is sustainable over time that pays out more than it takes in. By definition, if we pay out 57 percent of the gross, it has to cost us less than 43 cents to generate every dollar, and that’s not the case.

                                The biggest problem for competition is that small market teams aren't solvent enough to sign veterans and make that extra push for a championship. It's not superstars bolting for big markets.
                                Last edited by King Tuts Tomb; 04-15-2011, 10:02 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X